This brings us to the right of the wife to work for another person. Well, this right also is entwined with the feudal language codes. Yet, before going into that aspect, I would like to mention that in the per-British period and also in the areas where British rule had not made any significant social impact, the lower caste females were more or less simply called to work for the local landlord. The landlords henchmen would seek out presentable females and inform the landlord, if at all they are not immediately known to him. Even though there was no social custom as such that the serfs wife, sisters and daughters had to compulsorily lend connubial pleasure to the landlord, there was no way the serf could thwart the intentions. Even if he tries to prevent it from happening, it was only a matter of time before she is allured into the more pleasurable ambience of the landlords ample bed and other gadgetry.
The serf would be prevented not from any financial disability, for this disability was thing that did concern him. The social levels at which he was made to exist simply made him a helpless creature. The wife would also know about it. Moreover, when the others mention him in the lower indicant word levels, she would also literally participate in the demeaning. So to say that the lower caste females were made to undergo forced sex and such things wouldnt have much meaning. For, the females would know that their husbands had only limited social power. While the landlord had huge social powers, which was overwhelming and quite encompassing in the local area. Naturally, power in the feudal language situation, literally acts as an aphrodisiac of unimaginable vitality. What I mentioned in this paragraph is not my flight of fancy. It was a way of life in the geographical area currently called India.
It was the British rule and machineries of law and order that they set all over the place that more or less reined in the powers of the landlords. Some of them did get into trouble with the local police, whose exact quality cannot also be commented upon. At least some of them who were punished for some truculent behaviour later got adorned as Freedom Fighters at least in popular films.
Now, what has the government of free India done to safeguard the possession of such socially dominated persons in India, from intrusive claims of the rich and the powerful? Even the free-India police do make use of any such women who fall into their hands. There has been no deed from the legislature to provide the social security of these men folk. And talking of social security, since so-believed liberal themes of legislations are being contemplated upon, why has not there been any attempt to provide social security to all persons here, who are enfeebled in various ways, including financially. Why only a minor percentage of government employees also are eligible for pension, and that too in astronomical size amounts? In England, I mean Great Britain, Social Security in the form of pension is there for everyone who is financially disabled. Not just for the government employees.
The right to work and the changes: Now, let me go back to the theme of the right of the wife to work for another person. Here, as I had mentioned earlier, there is a sharp difference between what happens to a woman who works thus in England and who works thus in India. In England, the womans so many defining features do not change. For example, she is still She, and other words like Her, Hers etc. does not change.
However, in India, there is a total change in her. When she works for another person, to him, she is a lower She, a lower Her, and a lower Hers. She will have to address him with a higher level You, and use higher level He and His when referring to him. It is a very defining categorisation. For persons who are socially of that level, naturally below the other individual, it is not a major change. For, even without working for him, she is still in that indicant word bracket.
However, for a woman whose husband doesnt come in that social level, it is really a marked lowering of social status. Yet, in feudal language codes, people are linked powerfully. When she goes down, her husband also goes down. Her children become the children of the other mans employee. Everyones defining indicant words are affected.
If the husband is mentally and socially from a class that is below the other person, and he acknowledges his lower status in the indicant words, then it may not be an issue. If not, it is an issue that can continuously disturb.
What literally happens is that the wife is now one among the other employees of the other person. So that in many ways, the husbands status also is of that same level. For, the others would simply pull him down to their levels, by a mere change of indicant word code.
Now, in this totally diabolical situation, to claim that the husband has no say in whether the wife should work for another person or not, is a utter stupid understanding, that only the nitwits who drafted the Act would conceive.
It is like in the case of the prospecting done before a marriage. The family members are quite concerned as to whether the new alliance is suitable to their own indicant word level. For, once the marriage takes place, they are all forcibly brought into various levels of subordination or dominance over so many other persons in the other family.
If such prospecting is allowed in marriages, it goes without saying that the husband also can have a say in deciding whether the wife should join a workforce or not. Persons who have a secure financial acumen will sit in that secure ambience and pronounce judgements on the husband. That he is insecure, and jealous of his wife being in others company etc. Well, the truth is that the husband would feel insecure, even if he is from a lower or higher social level.
That also needs explaining. The wife is working in an organisation. It is a vernacular language social setting. If the wife is a lower indicant worded personality there, then her husband is also likewise. Even if he is from a higher social bracket, people would use sly cunning to filter in lower level information about him in vital areas. It can have killing effects on his social mobility. For, it is the level in the indicant words that defines his social level. Suppose he was to go to the organisation where his wife is working, he would have to face that level of communication from the employees inside. Sometimes starting from the very security personnel at the gate. The indicant words that the clerical staffs use may disturb him. To the boss, he would be forced to show subservience equal to the level of his wifes standing in the work organisation. Well, beyond all this, he would see his wife being addressed and referred to in the more intimate or lower grade indicant words, that more or less signifies her status as equal to or below that of the other personnel there. The boss will be using the same words.
Now talking about the lower grade indicant words, they signify the dominating, more intimate, one-sided, intrusive personal level of relationship. In that setting, the codes may literally show him at a level equal to the other personnel and below the level of the boss, in his dominance over his wife. It shall be a really upsetting enlightenment for him. Yet, it wouldnt be much different from what he would have expected or mentally visualised.
All this just because his wife had joined into another persons subordination. Yet, there is the other claim. She is bored at home. She wants to mix with others. It is an enlivening experience to daily interact with others. Well, here the issue might border on wider issues of what is the cultural and mental level of the wife.
The prop that vanished and appeared on the other side: Now, let us visualise another eventuality. One person is a shopkeeper. His wife doesnt come to the shop, but she is privy to all his business decisions, and details of his vendors and suppliers. One fine morning her some associates or family relations, get her a job as a sales person in a nearby shop. She is thrilled. Her husband is aghast. However, the others from her associates are of the opinion that she should be given the freedom to work elsewhere. For, why should she stay at home, when he is in the shop?
Now, what is the logic he can come up with?
The next day, she is sitting in a competing shop. She has promised him that she wouldnt divulge any of his business secrets to the other organisation. She says the other owner (male or female) is quite nice. What is he to say about that? He knows, as well as everyone else, that when another persons wife is being poached, the strategy is to be exceedingly nice. If he mentions such things, it may amount to a stark display of some weak mental personality, jealousy and insecurity. This would be mentioned thus, by persons inimical to him.
A vital component in the machinery of leadership: Now, we need to go into another aspect connected to this issue. It is something really connected to reality codes {see my book: Codes of reality! What is language?}, but I will explain it here without going deep into that arena. It is about the concept and machinery of leadership as it works in a feudal language social setting.
When a person sits alone and he is seen thus by new persons, they do not know whether to accord him the higher indicant, higher respectful words. Yet, when he is seen accompanied by an adjutant, who very obviously respects him, that very respect would diffuse into the seeing persons. They would also be spontaneously forced to accord him a higher indicant word usage. Once this is done, an aura of leadership envelops him. This is a phenomenon that may not have an exact parallel in an English setting. For, here the affect of indicant words is there, which is absent in English.
Leadership in feudal language settings is an accruing thing. It builds up, as more and more persons assemble under a person. For, more and more persons start using the higher indicant words. Beyond all this, the presence of a woman as a supporter and prop is a very powerful thing. Especially, if the woman is seen to be from a higher quality arena. Indicant words, respect and leadership can literally shoot up.
Treachery at its finest: Now consider the situation of the wife of the shopkeeper being in constant companionship with the other shop owner, male or female. It is a very powerful deleting of leadership from her husband and transferring it to a competing entity. In all sense of the word, it is a very powerful action of infidelity. Treachery at its worst or best!
Where the Act has failed: Now, what is the provision in the Act that at least mentions that the husband has a right to his wifes companionship, as against the claims of a competing individual or institution? Or at least the right to demand his wife not to lend props of leadership to another person to whom the husband has no liking.
